Legalized Marijuana vs. Legalized Abortion

[manifold]

Would you support a constitutional amendment that simultaneously legalized marijuana and outlawed abortion?

Is the right to take the life of a developing person so precious that even my asking this question offends you?

Is the right to indulge in a natural substance responsibly a worthy enough cause that you'd be willing to sacrifice the right to take the life of a developing person?

I dunno

But it's an interesting thing to ponder.

 

[Ed Spacer]

I support it as a right-wing conservative activist.
Marijuana doesn't kill babies.
Abortions do.
Count a yes vote for me.

 

[Ed Spacer]

The real reason hemp was outlawed is for financial reasons back in the 20s and 30s because of the Dupont company and others,because hemp was cheaper,stronger,etc,etc,etc.

 

[syrenn]

I vote no.

Taking away a woman's absolute right to her body.....so others can get high.

 

[manifold]

I vote no.

Taking away a woman's absolute right to her body.....so others can get high.

Woman can't legally get high either, so there goes the absolute right to one's body argument dummy.

 

[JWBooth]

I vote no.

Taking away a woman's absolute right to her body.....so others can get high.

Nice tits

 

[JWBooth]

Neither the evil weed or the abortion should fall under the purview of the national government.

 

[Swagger]

I vote no.

Taking away a woman's absolute right to her body.....so others can get high.

The reverse being taking a person's absolute right over their body (and mind, as is the case here)... so others can get pregnant. Both are equally selfish, if you're pragmatic about it.

Personally speaking, I'm not as passionate as some re. abortion, and it's a stormy sea to navigate when you're contending with opposing sides with equally strong and valid cases. Though ultimately I think a woman should be allowed to abort if she sees no other option other than to terminate the pregnancy. But it's not a subject I get worked-up over.

I am, however, a strong advocate for the legalisation of marijuana. I'm personally biased because I enjoy smoking weed. I'm not too keen on the hydroponic skunk strains available on the street that'll knock a man for six halfway through his joint, and I strongly recommend moderate consumption. But if governments allowed and stewarded state sanctioned cultivation and sales of marijuana then they'd be killing two birds with one stone. They'd take power from the criminal gangs who flood the black market with potent and/or adulterated cannabis almost overnight: anyone who's familiar with buying weed off of dealers will plump for convenience in the form of state sanctioned outlets over rendezvousing with a potentially dangerous stranger in a multi-storey carpark who's likely to rip you off (seriously, some of the hashish I've bought in the past was so adulterated, you'd be better off smoking a bin liner). They'd also open the flood gates on a huge source of revenue created by the taxes levied against the respective incomes of state sanctioned cannabis farmers and retailers.

 

[manifold]

Neither the evil weed or the abortion should fall under the purview of the national government.

I agree, philosophically and ideally.

But pragmatically speaking, that horse left the barn a long time ago.

So if there was an actual constitutional amendment on the table, as stated in the OP, would you or would you not support it?

 

[Immanuel]

I voted no.

Although I would prefer the total number of abortions in the U.S. from now through eternity equaled a whopping zero, I don't believe making it illegal will fill that dream or even decrease the number of abortions by 5% or any significant number at all. Overturning Roe and sending the issue back to the states won't solve the problem either. It will only make things worse. Defeating abortion will take changing the hearts of the people one person at a time.

I would be for legalizing marijuana, but if (when) it is done, I have no desire to begin using it.

Immie

 

[manifold]

I vote no.

Taking away a woman's absolute right to her body.....so others can get high.

The reverse being taking a person's absolute right over their body (and mind, as is the case here)... so others can get pregnant. Both are equally selfish, if you're pragmatic about it.

Exactly. The entire 'right over one's body' argument is nullified in this hypothetical debate because in either case said right is infringed (or partially forfeited). So it would simply come down to a value judgment as to which particular infringement is more tolerable and/or which right is more precious to you.

Clearly Syrenn falls into the category of persons who consider the right to take the life of a developing person to be so sacrosanct that merely posing the question ruffles her feathers. And I'm not going to hold that against her because as I said, it boils down to a value judgment. I also suspect there are many others here that would agree with her. But what I'd really be interested in seeing is a compelling argument to that effect that doesn't rely on the 'right over one's body' argument because in this case, that argument is null and void.

 

[JWBooth]

No

Two serious, yet ridiculous issues to be dicking with the constitution over.

 

[manifold]

No

Two serious, yet ridiculous issues to be dicking with the constitution over.

So are they serious issues or ridiculous issues?

And nobody is talking about 'dicking' with the constitution. The question relates to ratifying a hypothetical amendment. Would your answer be different if instead of an amendment the question simply asked 'would you support legislation that...?'

 

[High_Gravity]

Would you support a constitutional amendment that simultaneously legalized marijuana and outlawed abortion?

Is the right to take the life of a developing person so precious that even my asking this question offends you?

Is the right to indulge in a natural substance responsibly a worthy enough cause that you'd be willing to sacrifice the right to take the life of a developing person?

I dunno

But it's an interesting thing to ponder.

Nah I think both sould be legal.

 

[manifold]

Would you support a constitutional amendment that simultaneously legalized marijuana and outlawed abortion?

Is the right to take the life of a developing person so precious that even my asking this question offends you?

Is the right to indulge in a natural substance responsibly a worthy enough cause that you'd be willing to sacrifice the right to take the life of a developing person?

I dunno

But it's an interesting thing to ponder.

Nah I think both sould be legal.

Me too.

But that wasn't the question.

 

[manifold]

OK, I'm man enough to own my fails, and damn it if this isn't a massive fail.

I actually thought this question might take people out of their comfort zones and foster an interesting discussion, but clearly I was waaaaay off.

Oh well, I guess it's back to pussy siglines and sandy vag jokes for the time being.

bwgd?

 

[Mr.Nick]

I vote no.

Taking away a woman's absolute right to her body.....so others can get high.

No it's NOT her body its the fucking babies body...

A baby isn't an organ...

An abortion impedes another individuals right to life.

You don't own the baby - the baby IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY....

You may as well argue for slavery, considering you believe a baby is your property.

 

[Big Black Dog]

You are comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't vote yes for either one.